The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1887-01-26
SUPREME COURT CASES
ssportsd for The Clarion BY W. H. Harper
Afforney-st-law, Jackson. Mos
october Term-Iss6.
P. B. P. krwooD. !

P. B. P krwooD.
VS..
L. I. BAeKETT.
Appeal from the chancery court of Lee
hole county. Hon. r. w. Wilson, chan
cellor.
S.R. Coleman and Hooker d Wilson
for the appellant.
Rush d Gardner for the appellee.
p. B. Portwood filed this bill against
L. T. Basket, sheriff of Lefiore coun-
ty The bill sets out that the defendant,
as sheriff and tax collector of Letiore
county, had collected from the complain
ant the sun of $500 90, as required by
law, for license to retail yinous and spir-
ituous liquors at Emm vile, in said coun-
ty; that defendant now demands OF MIN
an additional sum of 500 for license to
retail liquors under an act of the Legisia-
ture of the State of Mississippi, passed
March 10, 1886, imposing tax on such
privileges for the purpose OF aiding IN
the construction and maintenance OF
levees in the Yazoo- Mississippi Delta
levee district, in which district COM
plainant resides; that defendant threat
ems to close up the place OF business OF
complainant, and distrain his goods, ana
that unless restrained by order OF this
court, an irreparable injury Will De III
ficted on complainant, and ne VIII De
subjected to various annoyances ana vex-
atious litigation. The bill prays tor
writ of injunction TO restrain him from
interfering with the business OF COM
plainant, and restraining him from the
collection of the 500 tax. because the
law under which it was levied violates
the provisions of sec. 6, art. s, of the
constitution of this State, which pro
vides that " all moneys received tor
licenses granted under the general laws
of this State for the sale of intoxicating
| liquors, or keepingof dram shops, shall
be devoted to the school fund. The de-
| PENDANT demurred because the bill fails
to show any ground for the interference
of court of equity, and because the
| law under which the lax Is levied Is
constitutional and valid. The chancellor
sustained the demurrer and dismissed
the bill. The complainant appealed.
ARNOLD, j.. delivered the opinion of the
court.
| Section 1881 of the Code settles the
question of jurisdiction. However il
| may be on general principles, that sec
| ton of the Code declares that chancery
| courts shall have jurisdiction of suits to
restrain the collection of taxes, levied or
| attempted to be collected without author
| ity of law.
1t appears from the face of the act sp-
| proved March the 10th, 1886, acts of
| 1886, 100, and more fully from the en-
| rolled bill on file in the Office of the
Secretary of State, that it was intended
| by the act to impose tax on the licen-
ces or privileges granted under the laws
of the State TO persons engaged in re-
I failing liquor, and other occupations.
The purpose manifested by the act was
not to regulate the traffic in liquors, but
| to obtain revenue from the licenses or
privileges of those who were there
| by authorized to sell it. 1t was not a
| violation of art. S, sec. 8 of the consti-
tuition, or of the amendments thereto,
for the Legislature to do this. Such
licenses or privileges are franchises of
pecuniary value, and subject to taxa
| tion. Coulson VS.. Harris, 43 Miss, 72S
Ould & Darlington VS.. The City of Rich
mond, % Graf, 464. 1t is money re-
ceiyed from licenses granted under the
laws of the State for the sale of liquors
| or keeping of dram shops, which the
constitution de, otes to the support of
free schools; but money derived from a
tax on such licenses or privileges, is not
money received for the licenses or priv
ileges. Afirmed